Yuguang Meng1, Jesse Cheung2, Phillip Zhe Sun1,3. 1. Yerkes Imaging Center, Yerkes National Primate Research Center, Emory University, Atlanta, Georgia. 2. Emory College of Arts and Sciences, Emory University, Atlanta, Georgia. 3. Department of Radiology and Imaging Sciences, Emory University School of Medicine, Atlanta, Georgia.
Abstract
PURPOSE: To characterize and minimize the magnetization transfer (MT) effect in MR fingerprinting (MRF) relaxation measurements with a 2-pool (2P) MT model of multiple tissue types. THEORY AND METHODS: Semisolid MT effect in MRF was modeled using 2P Bloch-McConnell equations. The combinations of MT parameters of multiple tissues (white [WM] and gray matter [GM]) were used to build the MRF dictionary. Both 1-pool (1P) and 2P models were simulated to characterize the dependence on MT. Relaxations measured using MRF with spin-echo saturation-recovery (SR) or inversion-recovery preparations were compared with conventional SR-prepared T1 and multiple spin-echo T2 measurements. The simulations results were validated with phantoms and brain tissue samples. RESULTS: The MRF signal was different from the 1P and 2P models. 1P MRF produced significantly (P < .05) underestimated T1 in WM (20-30%) and GM (7-10%), while 2P MRF measured consistent T1 and T2 in both WM and GM with conventional measurements (pairwise test P > .1; correlated P < .05). Simulations showed that SR-prepared MRF measuring T1 had much less errors against the variation of the macromolecular fraction. Compared with inversion-recovery preparation, SR-prepared MRF produced higher relaxation correlations (R > 0.9) with conventional measurements in both WM and GM across samples, suggesting that SR-prepared MRF was less sensitive to the compositive effect of multiple MT parameters variations. CONCLUSIONS: 2P MRF using a combination of MT parameters for multiple tissue types can measure consistent relaxations with conventional methods. With the 2P models, SR-prepared MRF would provide an option for robust relaxation measurement under heterogeneous MT.
PURPOSE: To characterize and minimize the magnetization transfer (MT) effect in MR fingerprinting (MRF) relaxation measurements with a 2-pool (2P) MT model of multiple tissue types. THEORY AND METHODS: Semisolid MT effect in MRF was modeled using 2P Bloch-McConnell equations. The combinations of MT parameters of multiple tissues (white [WM] and gray matter [GM]) were used to build the MRF dictionary. Both 1-pool (1P) and 2P models were simulated to characterize the dependence on MT. Relaxations measured using MRF with spin-echo saturation-recovery (SR) or inversion-recovery preparations were compared with conventional SR-prepared T1 and multiple spin-echo T2 measurements. The simulations results were validated with phantoms and brain tissue samples. RESULTS: The MRF signal was different from the 1P and 2P models. 1P MRF produced significantly (P < .05) underestimated T1 in WM (20-30%) and GM (7-10%), while 2P MRF measured consistent T1 and T2 in both WM and GM with conventional measurements (pairwise test P > .1; correlated P < .05). Simulations showed that SR-prepared MRF measuring T1 had much less errors against the variation of the macromolecular fraction. Compared with inversion-recovery preparation, SR-prepared MRF produced higher relaxation correlations (R > 0.9) with conventional measurements in both WM and GM across samples, suggesting that SR-prepared MRF was less sensitive to the compositive effect of multiple MT parameters variations. CONCLUSIONS: 2P MRF using a combination of MT parameters for multiple tissue types can measure consistent relaxations with conventional methods. With the 2P models, SR-prepared MRF would provide an option for robust relaxation measurement under heterogeneous MT.
Authors: Ouri Cohen; Shuning Huang; Michael T McMahon; Matthew S Rosen; Christian T Farrar Journal: Magn Reson Med Date: 2018-05-13 Impact factor: 4.668
Authors: Katherine L Wright; Yun Jiang; Dan Ma; Douglas C Noll; Mark A Griswold; Vikas Gulani; Luis Hernandez-Garcia Journal: Magn Reson Imaging Date: 2018-03-12 Impact factor: 2.546
Authors: Yuning Gu; Charlie Y Wang; Christian E Anderson; Yuchi Liu; He Hu; Mette L Johansen; Dan Ma; Yun Jiang; Ciro Ramos-Estebanez; Susann Brady-Kalnay; Mark A Griswold; Chris A Flask; Xin Yu Journal: Magn Reson Med Date: 2018-05-09 Impact factor: 4.668
Authors: Christian E Anderson; Shannon B Donnola; Yun Jiang; Joshua Batesole; Rebecca Darrah; Mitchell L Drumm; Susann M Brady-Kalnay; Nicole F Steinmetz; Xin Yu; Mark A Griswold; Chris A Flask Journal: Sci Rep Date: 2017-08-16 Impact factor: 4.379
Authors: Eva M Serrao; Dimitri A Kessler; Bruno Carmo; Lucian Beer; Kevin M Brindle; Guido Buonincontri; Ferdia A Gallagher; Fiona J Gilbert; Edmund Godfrey; Martin J Graves; Mary A McLean; Evis Sala; Rolf F Schulte; Joshua D Kaggie Journal: Sci Rep Date: 2020-10-16 Impact factor: 4.379